I agree with this. I have argued with my wife and family that kids should not study for these standardized tests, because it could possibly skew the image they give to anybody looking at their records. Your image or snapshot is shown by these scores and your GPA. They have no other way of getting to know you until you get to the interview stage. This could push you into a field that you might not be naturally suited.

There's still not enough compelling reason to say that the new policies are biased or not, but I can see the reason why it affects many Asian families. A lot has been invested to "game" the system, and it is a heavy toll on those that can barely afford it. This is where the feeling of unfairness comes from.

So basically, some people have been spending a lot of money to make their child look better than they really are (essentially cheating) and are now unhappy that they will no longer have that advantage....

Basically.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it cheating per se. It has been done for many years, even when I was a kid they had booklets and practice tests. The problem is that everyone is doing it, and their child would look comparatively worse if they didn't cave in to it.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it cheating per se. It has been done for many years, even when I was a kid they had booklets and practice tests. The problem is that everyone is doing it, and their child would look comparatively worse if they didn't cave in to it.

It is still cheating... The "everybody's doing it" argument does not mitigate the action. Large numbers of baseball players took PEDs for many years, to the point we now have a name for it (the steroid era). They tried to use the "everybody was doing it" argument, yet we still acknowledge that those players were cheating.

Lihu - those articles you linked to are old. SCA 5, which passed the California Senate Jan 30, needs to get past the Assembly. Then the people vote on a proposition, which would happen around 2015. If that passes, then the policy has been passed but then could still be challenged. No policy change has taken affect yet. so the subject line to this thread isn't true - it should read proposed CA policies may... It could happen, but it hasn't yet.

My opinion has always been - hey, you don't make Harvard, you can go to Cornell, still a good school. Can't make an Ivy League, U Mich or U Chicago isn't that bad either. If you're smart and have additional skills, it'll eventually come out, no matter what school you went to. I'll still sign the petitions, regardless.

Lihu - those articles you linked to are old. SCA 5, which passed the California Senate Jan 30, needs to get past the Assembly. Then the people vote on a proposition, which would happen around 2015. If that passes, then the policy has been passed but then could still be challenged. No policy change has taken affect yet. so the subject line to this thread isn't true - it should read proposed CA policies may... It could happen, but it hasn't yet.

My opinion has always been - hey, you don't make Harvard, you can go to Cornell, still a good school. Can't make an Ivy League, U Mich or U Chicago isn't that bad either. If you're smart and have additional skills, it'll eventually come out, no matter what school you went to. I'll still sign the petitions, regardless.

I don't think this is the same thing. This is an amendment that would apply to all public CA college admissions, applying directly to prop 209. The topic here is referring to changes in admission policy of the UC system only, which was first brought up in the old article you mentioned, but only recently took effect.

I forwarded the OP article to a friend of mine that knows more about this stuff than me. He is a teacher at a prestigious "magnet" high school around here (perhaps not coincidentally, also predominately Asian) and is also an "admissions reader" for UCLA. Here's what he said:

Quote:

We're already not using SAT subject tests (those specific subject ones) anymore. From my perspective as a UCLA admissions reader, this policy is already "nominally" in place in that we're supposed to evaluate every candidate "holistically", i.e. not just look at GPA/SAT scores- you have to take in context like if they go to a bad school vs. a good school, the rigor of their available courseload, money issues, being 1st generation to attend college, etc. Plus you add on extracurricular activities and their personal statements.

So... the policy already says that UCLA looks at "the whole picture". But in reality, you show me a kid's info (his HS, his family situation, his GPA/SAT/strength of schedule) and I will give you a 90%+ accurate evaluation score on our 1-5 scale. Extracurriculars and personal statements rarely push a kid up/down from your initial look at their grades, etc. (It happens, but not often, and even when it does, it never provides a jump/drop more than a single ranking.)

Lihu - those articles you linked to are old. SCA 5, which passed the California Senate Jan 30, needs to get past the Assembly. Then the people vote on a proposition, which would happen around 2015. If that passes, then the policy has been passed but then could still be challenged. No policy change has taken affect yet. so the subject line to this thread isn't true - it should read proposed CA policies may... It could happen, but it hasn't yet.

My opinion has always been - hey, you don't make Harvard, you can go to Cornell, still a good school. Can't make an Ivy League, U Mich or U Chicago isn't that bad either. If you're smart and have additional skills, it'll eventually come out, no matter what school you went to. I'll still sign the petitions, regardless.

This is my next topic. SCA5 effectively nullifies proposition 209 in regard to the UC schools. I think it only strikes out any reference to UC. I'm still looking at it.

I don't think this is the same thing. This is an amendment that would apply to all public CA college admissions, applying directly to prop 209. The topic here is referring to changes in admission policy of the UC system only, which was first brought up in the old article you mentioned, but only recently took effect.

You're right. I a bit confused that he's referring to a 2009 article that talked about changes in 2012. Based on this:

I don't think this is the same thing. This is an amendment that would apply to all public CA college admissions, applying directly to prop 209. The topic here is referring to changes in admission policy of the UC system only, which was first brought up in the old article you mentioned, but only recently took effect.

You're right. I a bit confused that he's referring to a 2009 article that talked about changes in 2012. Based on this:

For the topic you brought up, we need to look at pre-1996 and post-1996 (to current) admissions statistics. I am trying to dig them up, and get a meaningful statistic. I'm sure Hernandez did not make anything up, but it's still going to take some research to make sure. Suffice it to say, the proposal in Dec. 3, 2012 is going forward, but where it ends or how it is written is completely up in the air and we don't even know if it will reach the ballot in November.

I don't think this is the same thing. This is an amendment that would apply to all public CA college admissions, applying directly to prop 209. The topic here is referring to changes in admission policy of the UC system only, which was first brought up in the old article you mentioned, but only recently took effect.

You're right. I a bit confused that he's referring to a 2009 article that talked about changes in 2012. Based on this:

For the topic you brought up, we need to look at pre-1996 and post-1996 (to current) admissions statistics. I am trying to dig them up for all the schools, and get a meaningful statistic. I'm sure Hernandez did not make anything up, but it's still going to take some more research to make sure.

This plot is Hernandez's main argument. The biggest downward change is from 1989 to 1997, it appears that there is an upwards trend after 1998, and back down after 2005. This chart clearly show as dramatic a downward trend after 2005 as the upward trend from 1997. It is published in a journal that reports ethnic inequities.

Suffice it to say, the proposal in Dec. 3, 2012 is going forward, but where it ends or how it is written is completely up in the air and we don't even know if it will reach the ballot in November. Quite honestly, the proposed amendment appears to be irrelevant as the gap looks like it is going to continue to narrow down naturally.

We also need to research the political and economic landscape in 1996. I think IT was quickly becoming a popular vocation at that time. It did not require as much education, pays more and was in extremely high demand.

OT..Back in the mid 80's I applied for a pretty neat well paying job. I'm a white dude, and was well qualified for the job. The reason I wasn't hired was because I wasn't an American Indian, or an African american, and was told so. I went on and found another pretty neat job.

OT..Back in the mid 80's I applied for a pretty neat well paying job. I'm a white dude, and was well qualified for the job. The reason I wasn't hired was because I wasn't an American Indian, or an African american, and was told so. I went on and found another pretty neat job.

I hate that, and it happened to a friend of mine. It still bothers me.

I haven't read all the thread on this topic, but I read a sufficient amount to know the issue.

Here is my take:

I've taught R1 universities for several years so I have a first hand experience on some of the issues.

I've also spoken with Professors in Asian countries and we discussed the differences in education system between Asian countries and the U.S.

Generally speaking, Asian students spend a significant more amount of time than the U.S. students in studying and getting ready for colleges.

It is also true, Asian students are good at test taking. This is the key that is missing in this issue. Because Asian students spend a lot of time memorizing facts and practicing test taking, they score extremely well (as a general rule) in standardized tests.

But UC systems and other R1 universities are NOT built on brute memorization and test taking skills. Yes, test taking is a skill. What UC systems and R1 universities are looking for are not only students who can do well academically, but ones who can think independently and "outside the box", if you will. Ones who can think independently and do independent research and can be the future leaders.

In my experience as an educator, this is where Asian students do not out perform other ethnic groups. They are no better than any other ethnic groups when it comes to independent thinking. In fact, one can argue that Asian students are worse off then other ethnic groups in independent thinking. Why? Because they are taught to obey. Obey their parents, elders, teachers, etc. Basically, Asian students are taught to "not to rock the boat", if you will.

While the policy changes to the UC system may de facto disadvantage Asians, I believe it is not intended to single out Asians. I think the policy makers wanted to ensure that the policy changes attract more independent thinkers, not just students who can take tests well, but those who (while not good at test taking) are good at thinking out-side the box.

I have empirical data to support my position in that one of the professors at a top universities in Asian Country agreed with my assessment. He was disheartened at how terrible some of their top high school recruits fail miserably when it comes to independent research.

So, unless proven otherwise, I support the changes instituted by the UC system. Test scores and academic achievements are not and should not be the end all measuring stick for admission.

A crude analogy to golf would be if you are picking someone for your four-some for a best ball (not scramble). You see a guy hitting his driver really well at the range and you pick him as one of your foursome. Turns out, that's all he is good at. Hitting the driver. He has a terrible short game and putting.

I have to admit that all the tutoring geared towards test taking makes these students really strong at taking them.

There's more. "Thinking out of the Box" is a class kids can take, and they get good as solving all kinds of puzzles. Another buzzword is "EQ/IQ" where kids take classes on becoming more confident at communicating with others. It borderlines absurdity, but Asian parents want to make sure their kids can "compete". There's big money to be made with all these "learning" centers. If I hadn't seen it for myself, I wouldn't believe it.

I suppose it's no different than the "sports dad" or the "singer/actress mom". I even know a few. My kid has many a "sports kid" friend. Like a 15 year old golfer who trains 50 plus hours a week.